RE: [GTh] GTh 3.1-3 and Romans 10.6-8
- At 11:12 PM 7/18/2011, Andrew Bernhard wrote:
> Paul calls it the 'abyss', and presumes that it is the region where the dead reside:
> it is the place from which you might at least imagine 'bringing Christ up from the
> dead'. Thomas calls it the region 'under the earth', where the fish are.
> These are the same place - not across the sea ... but in the tehom under the earth,
> where people sleep with the fishes. [emphasis mine - MWG]
Well, of course, Thomas does not call it "the region 'under the earth'", and certainly
not in GTh 3.1-3 . . . What do you all think?
I think you�ve been looking at the Coptic text to the exclusion of the Greek. :-) Saying 3 in P.Oxy. 654, line 13 does include the Greek words for �under the earth.� Unfortunately, there is no full satisfactory reconstruction for the complete text of lines 12-14 because the Greek and Coptic don�t correspond exactly . . .
Also keep in mind that these terms are not strictly geographical, as we think of them. Some of them, e.g. 'under the earth,' may be more metaphysical than geographical. So we've got a mix of geographical and metaphysical connotations that takes us as much into "cosmology" as it takes us to "geography."
Bob in AZ
- Andrew Bernhard corrects me as follows:> I think you've been looking at the Coptic text to the exclusion of the Greek. :-)> Saying 3 in P.Oxy. 654, line 13 does include the Greek words for under the earth.Dang. I hate when that happens. But in my defense, Skinner's essay glossed over thisdifference. His exposition of the matter in question starts at the bottom of p.224 (ofPaul and the Gospels, to which Skinner contributed his essay) with the translationsas I gave them (the Thomas stuff obviously from the Coptic). He then briefly considersNagel and Gathercole in turn. With respect to Nagel's position, he writes:"... Thomas ... changes Deuteronomy's 'beyond the sea' to 'in the sea' (... though theGreek Oxyrhynchus fragment reads 'of the sea' ...)"There's no mention of "under the earth" in the discussion of Nagel's position, but thenit pops up suddenly without explanation when Skinner turns to Gathercole. Followingthe Gathercole quote I gave earlier, Skinner remarks:"Thus, it seems that both Thomas and Paul have changed not only the preposition butalso the concept associated with location 'sea'."What's confusing, of course, is that claims are being made about "Thomas" in thissection of Skinner's essay as if there were no manuscriptal differences germane to thematter at hand, when in fact there are. As I see now, those differences can be pickedout by careful reading, but they're glossed over in the general discussion.Mike G.p.s.: Andrew's and Bob's messages on this topic appear to have been sent twice,probably due to a temporary glitch at Yahoogroups.